[quote="dirtytuba"]What is a "Direct Experience" and how is someone's "Direct Experience" interfered with at burningman?

and what happens to burningman when art projects start getting banned from attending?[/quote]

What happens? Nothing. Most of the people who attend the event these days are mindless sheep. Here's an example: Burning Man organizers collaborated with the cops when the latter decided to censor a gay-themed piece of art at the event a couple of years back. A few people tried to protest this outrageous act of homophobia, but backed down obediently when BMORG told them not to rock the boat. Burning Man is dead and has been dead for years: it's just an embarassing shadow of its former self.

Chai Guy wrote:I think the official phrase you are seeking is "immediate experience" (but I could be wrong).

As for art being banned, do you want to talk about a specific example, or is this just a hypothetical future possibility?

the example has already happened... no need for specifics, because I want to have a general discussion... but I want to get to the definition of what a immediate/direct experience is, and why interfering with it is a bad thing. OR actually why BMORG uses that kind of language as a diffenitive thing to ban an art project.

that is a very good example of what I am thinking about. and one of the biggest questions raised by this article is "The question that remains for us to answer is exactly whose standards were violated. Did a twelve foot tall pornographic sign violate the standards of Black Rock City?"

it goes on with a difficult analysis of what I see BM having to deal with now that it has peaked. who is this deciding factor of Burning man and who lets them make these decisions, decisions like "Banning Art" like La Contessa.

> who is this deciding factor of Burning man and who lets them make
> these decisions, decisions like "Banning Art" like La Contessa.

I'm not sure what parallel you're drawing here. Jiffy Lube was asked to
take their sign out of view of the general public because it (probably)
violated local Nevada laws. That was a law enforcement decision, and one
which I'm quite certain the participants would not have prevailed against
if they'd tried to take it to court.

As far as I know, La Contessa will not be driving the playa next year
because they engendered numerous complaints from participants.
That was a Burning Man organizational decision.

Is the question should people be allowed to anything and everything,
regardless of how it affects others?

precipitate wrote:> who is this deciding factor of Burning man and who lets them make> these decisions, decisions like "Banning Art" like La Contessa.

I'm not sure what parallel you're drawing here. Jiffy Lube was asked to take their sign out of view of the general public because it (probably) violated local Nevada laws. That was a law enforcement decision, and one which I'm quite certain the participants would not have prevailed against if they'd tried to take it to court.

As far as I know, La Contessa will not be driving the playa next year because they engendered numerous complaints from participants. That was a Burning Man organizational decision.

Is the question should people be allowed to anything and everything, regardless of how it affects others?

after reading more of the Jiffy lube story, you are right there not much simalarities.

That's a good question in the La Contessa case. What affects did La Contessa have? I was on that boat basically on all the voyages from tuesday on and all I saw was BMrangers throwing there bikes and bodies out infront of our path. I saw other art cars trying to take off the front part of the ship by speeding in a midship to cross our bow unsafely. I also saw the most spactacular correographed duel between the hite whale and the ship.

I think the other question is why was la contessa singled out. when many other projects recieve complaints, like the rave/loud music scene. or motorcycles speeding through the night with no lights. and then what about the troller we've got on this board, why hasn't he been banned. he has "engendered numerous complaints from participants." yet no ban. and what about the artcars that actually injured people, are they banned?

My real question is: gets to decide these things, and who decides who is going to decide these things. what I have heard so far (in somemany words) "its their Party they can do whatever the fuck they want". which I can understand, but what does that say about this so called community who really has no say in the decisions that are made by this "Burning Man organizational decision" and no recourse....

But, alas, this all mute, the Contessa Clan, and its Marching Band will be off touring Europe next summer and has already started another event which hopefully gain enough steam to be a yearly thing.

so in a sense... y'all are right, "if you don't like this party, go start your own".

My camp was 100ft away from the la contessa parking lot on the esplanade. I really loved seeing that big beautiful thing in my neighborhood. The view of it silhouetted during sunrise was a favorite thing of mine to see from atop SRC. However, the view of it careening around the playa at top speed made me cringe. Fuck, whoever was driving that thing was breaking the speed limit when they were doing J-turns while parking the damn thing in camp.
Now, in terms of being singled out for BLATANT speed violations it is important to think of two things.
1. If people are to complain to rangers about certain art cars dangerous speeds they will need to describe the violating vehicle. That can be hard but not in the Contessa's case; 'uh yeah, it was the huge fuckin sailing ship mr. ranger sir'. So, the utterly recognizable aspect of that lovely piece of art may have been the Jackie Stewart wannabe fuckhead drivers undoing.
2. Just because other people are being fucktards does not excuse your fucktardedness. Just because others did not get punished does not mean you did not deserve your punishment.

> 2. Just because other people are being fucktards does not excuse your
> fucktardedness. Just because others did not get punished does not
> mean you did not deserve your punishment.

Amen to that.

And on that note, there was a shark car that took the door off my friend's
195(mumbledymumbledy) Ford pickup during the DPW parade. They
were able to weld it back on so he could drive home, but the damage was
pretty bad. I'd like to hear that those folks won't be able to bring their
vehicle back, and that the driver (if the driver could be identified) had art
car driving privileges revoked indefinitely. He nearly took the passenger
out with the door.

dirtytuba wrote:My real question is: gets to decide these things, and who decides who is going to decide these things. what I have heard so far (in somemany words) "its their Party they can do whatever the fuck they want". which I can understand, but what does that say about this so called community who really has no say in the decisions that are made by this "Burning Man organizational decision" and no recourse.....

And I've found that I am trying harder and harder to not respond in thought, word or deed with knee-jerk generalizations or get carried away with sentiments that don't look at a larger, or perhaps a closer, picture. I'm not always succesful, but the effort is there. In this vein I'd like to translate "its their Party they can do whatever the fuck they want".

Forgive me if you've heard this one before, but it sounds like some folks haven't, or could use a friendly reminder:

The "organization" of Burning Man volunteers, just like you. There is a very small paid staff (around 20) that is mostly comprised of FT office and IT staff. The vast majority Senior and Junior staff members are unpaid but dedicated. Decisions like this are made by them, their volunteer teams, and their managers.

The people who are making these decisions are regular Joe & Jane Burner who have shown some initiative, shown up to meetings, shown that they can convey their thoughts in a collaborative environment, and shown the ability to see something through.

It's only "their" party because you've made conscious decision not to get involved. Everyone is invited.

If you want to get in on the decision-making, you most likely can, but you have to do more than state your opinion on the matter. You have to pony up and participate in the other work that accompanies those teams.

That said, various volunteer teams have actively solicited opinions on a number of issues over the year's and have committed to doing more of same, using the JRS and the polling tool we instituted on the website this year. In that way, you can at least help inform the decision-making by voicing an opinion.

yeah what technopatra said!!!!!!!!!!!! i concur .Anyways i believe no matter how offensive the art is it shouldnt be banned maybe moved out were the installations are thus preventing accidental exposure to children which that is a whole different thread.I believe 2000 2001 was when i got to see the painting of jesus recieving bj from alter boy i laughed other people cried wondering if local law enforcement officials commented on that piece of art. as well as maybe theyre is some way for the llc to obtain a temporary ssort of permit or whatever laws that museums are protected bye.alla the jello biafra case the frankenchrist poster of a famous painting with several dicks and asses he was attacked by police but yet every year 10's of thousands of elementary students tour the museum were it is hung .So someone with a little more knowledge than me drop it please.By the way 2001 was my 2 nd year and i was camped nekt to slip and slide and around the corner from jiffy lube i think lmao and i never saw the said art piece.but maybe i did or was that the gay nazi camp lol either way allthough i wasnt interested in participating in theyre camp games lol i wasn't offended wouldn't be no fun without the without all the different lifestyles and last but not least the 60's will never be like the 50's and the 80's wont be like the 70's etc etc you get the point bm will never be like it was and what it was can never be like today .lmao dj big "E" laugh dont cry mofo

showing controversial art is often more a question of money, who gets it and who doesn't, then just a quesiton of pure law. When the Mapplethorpe bullwhip up da bumm and Serrano "PissChrist" came to Washington DC it was originally going to be in a museum that received a lot of federal dollars. When the fundies did what they do the museum lost its nerve, a decision that probably saved it several if not tens of million of dollars. It wasn't a first amendment issue because there was no outright prohibition on showing the work.

The show opend several weeks later at a private gallery. It was boon for them. For about a month there was a line around the block of people waiting to get in and see it.

Hey Precipitate: I understood that the Shark owner was actually ejected from the event, and that the shark will not be allowed back. If it WERE to reappear, it would be reduced to unwreckognizable MOOP by an angry mob. However, if the owner isn't blackballed from BM, he could just build another artcar... maybe register it in a buddy's name... and goddammit doesn't it suck; that shark was one of the coolest artcars ever and it's owner was such a dick (and a friend of a friend of mine).

GreyCoyote: "At this rate it wont be long before he is Admiral Fukkit."Delle: Singularly we may be dysfunctional misfits, but together we're magic.

I have no knowledge of the Shark Car guy being ejected from the event.

What I do understand is that the car will not be allowed back at the event next year. BTW, the 'main' guy wasn't the only prick at the camp that had the shark. There was a whole nest of assholes there. What was weird was how individually they all seemed reasonable but put five or so of them together and they turned into this seething, venemous mass of fucknuts.

Badger wrote:There was a whole nest of assholes there. What was weird was how individually they all seemed reasonable but put five or so of them together and they turned into this seething, venemous mass of fucknuts.

Oh this makes me hungry for unpostable details.
In fact, I almost chimed in "Great idea for a short story!" and to me, there is almost no excuse for short stories.
Nothing like meeting your evil doppleganger on a Monday morning.

technopatra wrote:The "organization" of Burning Man volunteers, just like you. There is a very small paid staff (around 20) that is mostly comprised of FT office and IT staff. The vast majority Senior and Junior staff members are unpaid but dedicated. Decisions like this are made by them, their volunteer teams, and their managers.